The Paris offices of the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo were firebombed Wednesday, the same day the magazine released an issue caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad on its cover. The new issue, which previewed online on Monday, names the Prophet as its “guest editor” in a mock tribute to the Islamist Ennahda Party’s victory in the Tunisian elections and the inclusion of Sharia law in Libya’s new constitution. The cover drawing depicts Muhammad promising “100 lashes if you don’t die from laughter.”

Although no group has claimed responsibility, there are strong indications that the firebombing was the work of Islamic extremists. The magazine’s website was hacked Tuesday night, with the welcome page replaced by an image of Mecca and the words: “No god but Allah.”

November 2 marked the seventh anniversary of Theo van Gogh’s murder by a pious young Muslim on an Amsterdam street. One of the memorable aspects of that history-making slaughter was the largely despicable way in which the media in the Netherlands and around the world covered it. Many of the accounts of van Gogh’s butchering, which was motivated by his short film, Submission, about the plight of women under Islam, hinted — or even stated directly — that van Gogh had been asking for it. He had gone too far. He had insulted Islam and offended Muslims. What, after all, asked one editorial after another, had he expected when he made Submission? He should have known what he was getting into. Freedom of expression was one thing, but giving needless offense to a billion and a half members of a religion? That was just plain over the line. Not sensible. Not prudent. Yes, van Gogh was — in his own country, at least — a famous contrarian, an iconoclast, accustomed to going after sacred cows across the political and cultural spectrum with all the gusto and irreverence he could muster. But to make a film that he had to know would outrage devout Muslims and put him in danger of being killed? Well, that was just stupid. Almost parenthetically, many of the editorialists acknowledged that there was no excuse for the murder. But their hearts weren’t in this rote qualification. They were out to condemn not the murderer, but the victim, who, in their eyes, has brought it all on himself.

Why is it so hard to speak honestly about allegations of sexual harassment or our corrupt ally in Afghanistan?

By Christopher Hitchens | Nov. 7, 2011

There were two generally depressing controversies last week, in both of which an exercise of free speech might have done more harm than good. The first concerns our disordered policy in Afghanistan and the second our ongoing and increasingly dishonest discussion of sexual harassment.

In the first instance, it was announced by Gen. John Allen, the senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan, that Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller had been “relieved of his duties” as deputy commander for the Afghan army’s training mission. This demotion, which may or may not result in the major general’s reassignment or retirement, was a direct consequence of an interview he gave to Politico. And this interview followed a speech made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in which he had said that, in the event of a war between Pakistan and the United States, Afghanistan would take Pakistan’s side.

Uncle Sam is getting a little weird. Make that a lot weird. Uncle Sam has decided that the key to winning Afghan “hearts and minds” lies in the latrines with the US Marines Corps.

No kidding. When nature calls, Uncle Sam has decided he wants every US Marine equipped with a map and compass, or some other way of knowing direction. This is to ensure that no US Marine in Afghanistan ever urinates in the direction of Mecca.

A group of senior Afghan lawmakers says the Obama administration is wasting its time in trying to make peace with the Haqqani Network, a Pakistan-based terrorist group U.S. officials have accused of killing Americans and attacking the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou’s decision to call off the referendum on the EU-brokered rescue plan may look like a sign of weakness. Not so. The wily Socialist has forced the opposition to get off the fence and declare its support for his policies. He has seriously scared, rather than merely “infuriated,” his European partners. Papandreou’s decision was a classic jiu-jitsu gambit, using own weakness to sap opponents’ strength. It illustrates a national talent for nifty ploys that comes with many centuries of playing political games with powerful foreigners—from Romans, Latins and Turks to the EU leaders of our own time.

The euro saga continues with every week a new and unexpected twist. If Finland is not causing trouble, it is Slovakia; if Slovakia is not causing trouble, it is Greece. Everywhere governments are uneasy: they know the people do not agree with the policies devised at the European Union level in Brussels.

The one thing EU elites absolutely wish to avoid is allowing the people a direct say over their own affairs. Any participation from the public, including referendums, is the great European taboo. Consequently, all hell broke loose when Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou proposed to hold a referendum about the austerity measures that Brussels wants to impose on the Greeks in return for a new bailout of the nearly bankrupt country. Papandreou was forced to cancel his plans, and subsequently resign, under the threat that if he refused Greece would not receive the next installment of the bailout which was agreed last year. Without this installment Greece will default by early December.